[ExI] "an aboriginal human from 70,000 B.C."

[Lee Corbin]

MB wrote


> Lee wrote:
> 
>> But new technology and new drugs sneaked in anyway. With
>> similar, but not so extreme results. (Probably because the American
>> Indians were already at a rather higher level of technology and
>> civilization than the Australian aborigines.)
> 
> I kinda think there was more to it than that. In the USA, IIUC, missionaries were
> often sent to start schools and remove the children from their native culture and
> convert them. The children (from what I've read) were not permitted to speak their
> native tongue, nor wear their native clothing, nor learn their native
> history/arts/culture/religion.
> 
> Did that work "better"?

Just last night some friends mentioned that they'd heard that the
results were mixed. In some cases becoming actually educated
opened up a whole new world to the Indian children. 

Was all contact between the children and their families cut?
If so, one wonders for how long. If it was long enough---say
they were sent away for years and years, then they'd come
back as "white men" in the Indians' eyes. 

> What is "better"? From what point of view? Perplexing.

When I happened to bring up the case of Australia last night,
my friends did not hesitate:  "It is better to spare the people
than spare the culture."  

What can the government do except forcibly integrate the
families into separate cities as far as part as possible?
It should have been done a long time ago.

> Or perhaps all that is Political Correct Speak about the Evil White Men. ?

Not that, for sure.  But best let the Australians speak for themselves.

Lee